EN BANC

G.R. No. L-72119 May 29, 1987

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

CORTES, J.:
The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is invoked in this
special civil action for mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin . egaspi against the Civil
!ervice Commission. The respondent had earlier denied egaspi"s re#uest for information on the
civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the $ealth %epartment of
Cebu City. These government employees, &ulian !ibonghanoy and 'ariano Agas, had allegedly
represented themselves as civil service eligibles (ho passed the civil service e)aminations for
sanitarians.
Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of &ulian !ibonghanoy and 'ariano Agas,
is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no other plain, speedy and ade#uate remedy to
ac#uire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the e)traordinary (rit of mandamus
to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said information.
This is not the first tune that the (rit of mandamus is sought to enforce the fundamental right to
information. The same remedy (as resorted to in the case of Tanada et. al. vs. Tuvera et. al., *+.,.
No. -./012, April 34,1052,1/. !C,A 367 (herein the people"s right to be informed under the 106/
Constitution *Article 8V, !ection .7 (as invoked in order to compel the publication in the 9fficial
+a:ette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions and other presidential issuances.
;rior to the recognition of the right in said Constitution the statutory right to information provided
for in the and ,egistration Act *!ection 2., Act 40., as amended7 (as claimed by a ne(spaper
editor in another mandamus proceeding, this time to demand access to the records of the ,egister
of %eeds for the purpose of gathering data on real estate transactions involving aliens *!ubido vs.
9:aeta, 5< ;hil. /5/ =1045>7.
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern first gained recognition in the
Bill of ,ights, Article 8V, of the 106/ Constitution, (hich states?
!ec. .. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recogni:ed. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citi:en sub@ect to such
limitations as may be provided by la(.
The foregoing provision has been retained and the right therein provided amplified in Article 888,
!ec. 6 of the 1056 Constitution (ith the addition of the phrase, Aas (ell as to government research
data used as basis for policy development.A The ne( provision reads?
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recogni:ed. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as (ell as to government research data used
as basis. for policy development, shall be afforded the citi:en, sub@ect to such
stations as may be provided by la(.
These constitutional provisions are self-e)ecuting. They supply the rules by means of (hich the
right to information may be en@oyed *Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional imitations 1.6
=1036>7 by guaranteeing the right and mandating the duty to afford access to sources of
information. $ence, the fundamental right therein recogni:ed may be asserted by the people upon
the ratification of the constitution (ithout need for any ancillary act of the egislature. * Id. at, p.
1.27 Bhat may be provided for by the egislature are reasonable conditions and limitations upon
the access to be afforded (hich must, of necessity, be consistent (ith the declared !tate policy of
full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest *Constitution, Art. 11, !ec. 357.
$o(ever, it cannot be overemphasi:ed that (hatever limitation may be prescribed by the
egislature, the right and the duty under Art. 888 !ec. 6 have become operative and enforceable by
virtue of the adoption of the Ne( Charter. Therefore, the right may be properly invoked in a
mandamus proceeding such as this one.
The !olicitor +eneral interposes procedural ob@ections to 9ur giving due course to this ;etition. $e
challenges the petitioner"s standing to sue upon the ground that the latter does not possess any
clear legal right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of the government employees
concerned. $e calls attention to the alleged failure of the petitioner to sho( his actual interest in
securing this particular information. $e further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the
part of the Commission to furnish the petitioner (ith the information he seeks.
1. To be given due course, a ;etition for mandamus must have been instituted by a party aggrieved
by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person (hich unla(fully e)cludes
said party from the en@oyment of a legal right. *AntC-Chinese eague of the ;hilippines vs. Deli),
66 ;hil. 1<13 =1046>7. The petitioner in every case must therefore be an Aaggrieved partyA in the
sense that he possesses a clear legal right to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty or act to
be performed.
8n the case before Es, the respondent takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring this
suit. 8t is asserted that, the instant ;etition is bereft of any allegation of egaspi"s actual
interest in the civil service eligibilities of &ulian !ibonghanoy and 'ariano Agas, At most there is a
vague reference to an unnamed client in (hose behalf he had allegedly acted (hen he made
in#uiries on the sub@ect *;etition, ,ollo, p. /7.
But (hat is clear upon the face of the ;etition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case
upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, (hich, by its very nature,
is a public right. 8t has been held that?
F F F (hen the #uestion is one of public right and the ob@ect of the mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party
in interest and the relator at (hose instigation the proceedings are instituted need
not sho( that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to
sho( that he is a citi:en and as such interested in the e)ecution of the la(s F F F
*Tanada et. al. vs. Tuvera, et. al., +.,. No. - ./012, April 34, 1052, 1/. !C,A 36,
/.7.
Drom the foregoing, it becomes apparent that (hen a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion
of a public right, the re#uirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the
petitioner is a citi:en, and therefore, part of the general ApublicA (hich possesses the right.
The Court had opportunity to define the (ord ApublicA in the Subido case, supra, (hen it held that
even those (ho have no direct or tangible interest in any real estate transaction are part of the
ApublicA to (hom A*a7ll records relating to registered lands in the 9ffice of the ,egister of %eeds
shall be open F F FA *!ec. 2., Act No. 40., as amended7. 8n the (ords of the Court?
F F F A;ublicA is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. ;roperly construed, it embraces
every person. To say that only those (ho have a present and e)isting interest of a
pecuniary character in the particular information sought are given the right of
inspection is to make an un(arranted distinction. FFF *!ubido vs. 9:aeta, supra at
p. /567.
The petitioner, being a citi:en (ho, as such is clothed (ith personality to seek redress for the
alleged obstruction of the e)ercise of the public right. Be find no cogent reason to deny his
standing to bring the present suit.
3. Dor every right of the people recogni:ed as fundamental, there lies a corresponding duty on the
part of those (ho govern, to respect and protect that right. That is the very essence of the Bill of
,ights in a constitutional regime. 9nly governments operating under fundamental rules defining
the limits of their po(er so as to shield individual rights against its arbitrary e)ercise can properly
claim to be constitutional *Cooley, supra, at p. 27. Bithout a government"s acceptance of the
limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution in order to uphold individual liberties, (ithout an
ackno(ledgment on its part of those duties e)acted by the rights pertaining to the citi:ens, the Bill
of ,ights becomes a sophistry, and liberty, the ultimate illusion.
8n recogni:ing the people"s right to be informed, both the 106/ Constitution and the Ne( Charter
e)pressly mandate the duty of the !tate and its agents to afford access to official records,
documents, papers and in addition, government research data used as basis for policy
development, sub@ect to such limitations as may be provided by la(. The guarantee has been
further enhanced in the Ne( Constitution (ith the adoption of a policy of full public disclosure,
this time Asub@ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by la(,A in Article 11, !ection 35 thereof, to
(it?
!ub@ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by la(, the !tate adopts and implements
a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. *Art.
11, !ec. 357.
8n the Tanada case, supra, the constitutional guarantee (as bolstered by (hat this Court declared
as an imperative duty of the government officials concerned to publish all important legislative
acts and resolutions of a public nature as (ell as all e)ecutive orders and proclamations of general
applicability. Be granted mandamus in said case, and in the process, Be found occasion to
e)pound briefly on the nature of said duty?
F F F That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The la(
itself makes a list of (hat should be published in the 9fficial +a:ette. !uch listing,
to our mind, leaves respondents (ith no discretion whatsoever as to what must be in
included or excluded from such publication. *Tanada v. Tuvera,supra, at /07.
*Emphasis supplied7.
The absence of discretion on the part of government agencia es in allo(ing the e)amination of
public records, specifically, the records in the 9ffice of the ,egister of %eeds, is emphasi:ed
in Subido vs. Ozaeta, supra:
E)cept, perhaps (hen it is clear that the purpose of the e)amination is unla(ful, or
sheer, idle curiosity, (e do not believe it is the duty under the la( of registration
officers to concern themselves (ith the motives, reasons, and ob@ects of the person
seeking access to the records. 8t is not their prerogative to see that the information
(hich the records contain is not flaunted before public ga:e, or that scandal is not
made of it. If it be wrong to publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature
and not the officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a
remedy. FFF *!ubido v. 9:aeta, supra at /557. *Emphasis supplied7.
8t is clear from the foregoing pronouncements of this Court that government agencies are (ithout
discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern. This is not to lose
sight of the reasonable regulations (hich may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public
records on the manner in (hich the right to information may be e)ercised by the public. 8n
the Subido case, Be recogni:ed the authority of the ,egister of %eeds to regulate the manner in
(hich persons desiring to do so, may inspect, e)amine or copy records relating to registered lands.
$o(ever, the regulations (hich the ,egister of %eeds may promulgate are confined to?
F F F prescribing the manner and hours of e)amination to the end that damage to or
loss of, the records may be avoided, that undue interference (ith the duties of the
custodian of the books and documents and other employees may be prevented, that
the right of other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured F F F *!ubido
vs. 9:aeta, 5< ;hil. /5/, /567
Applying the Subido ruling by analogy, Be recogni:ed a similar authority in a municipal @udge, to
regulate the manner of inspection by the public of criminal docket records in the case of aldoza
vs. !imaano *Adm. 'atter No. 113<-'&, 'ay 2, 106., 61 !C,A 147. !aid administrative case (as
filed against the respondent @udge for his alleged refusal to allo( e)amination of the criminal
docket records in his sala. Epon a finding by the 8nvestigating &udge that the respondent had
allo(ed the complainant to open and vie( the sub@ect records, Be absolved the respondent. 8n
effect, Be have also held that the rules and conditions imposed by him upon the manner of
e)amining the public records (ere reasonable.
8n both the Subido and the aldoza cases, Be (ere emphatic in 9ur statement that the authority
to regulate the manner of e)amining public records does not carry (ith it the po(er to prohibit. A
distinction has to be made bet(een the discretion to refuse outright the disclosure of or access to a
particular information and the authority to regulate the manner in (hich the access is to be
afforded. The first is a limitation upon the availability of access to the information sought, (hich
only the egislature may impose *Art. 888, !ec. ., 1056 Constitution7. The second pertains to the
government agency charged (ith the custody of public records. 8ts authority to regulate access is to
be e)ercised solely to the end that damage to, or loss of, public records may be avoided, undue
interference (ith the duties of said agencies may be prevented, and more importantly, that the
e)ercise of the same constitutional right by other persons shall be assured *!ubido vs.
9:aetal supra7.
Thus, (hile the manner of e)amining public records may be sub@ect to reasonable regulation by the
government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and
to afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its
performance cannot be made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. 9ther(ise, the
en@oyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any (himsical e)ercise of
agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its performance may be
compelled by a (rit of mandamus in a proper case.
But (hat is a proper case for 'andamus to issueG 8n the case before Es, the public right to be
enforced and the concomitant duty of the !tate are une#uivocably set forth in the Constitution.
The decisive #uestion on the propriety of the issuance of the (rit of mandamus in this case is,
(hether the information sought by the petitioner is (ithin the ambit of the constitutional
guarantee.
/. The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is
a recognition of the essentiality of the free flo( of ideas and information in a democracy *Baldo:a v.
%imaano, Adm. 'atter No. 113<-'&, 'ay 2, 106., 16 !C,A 147. 8n the same (ay that free
discussion enables members of society to cope (ith the e)igencies of their time *Thornhill vs.
Alabama, /1< E.!. 55,1<3 =10/0>7, access to information of general interest aids the people in
democratic decision-making *56 $arvard a( ,evie( 12<2 =1064>7 by giving them a better
perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation.
But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute. 8t
does not open every door to any and all information. Ender the Constitution, access to official
records, papers, etc., are Asub@ect to limitations as may be provided by la(A *Art. 888, !ec. 6, second
sentence7. The la( may therefore e)empt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as
those affecting national security *&ournal No. 0<, !eptember 3/, 105., p. 1<C and &ournal No. 01,
!eptember 34, 105., p. /3, 105. Constitutional Commission7. 8t follo(s that, in every case, the
availability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of the
information sought, i.e., *a7 being of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, *b7 not
being e)empted by la( from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. The threshold #uestion
is, therefore, (hether or not the information sought is of public interest or public concern.
a. This #uestion is first addressed to the government agency having custody of the desired
information. $o(ever, as already discussed, this does not give the agency concerned any discretion
to grant or deny access. 8n case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of
sho(ing that the information re#uested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that
the same has been e)empted by la( from the operation of the guarantee. To hold other(ise (ill
serve to dilute the constitutional right. As aptly observed, A. . . the government is in an
advantageous position to marshall and interpret arguments against release . . .A *56 $arvard a(
,evie( 1211 =1064>7. To safeguard the constitutional right, every denial of access by the
government agency concerned is sub@ect to revie( by the courts, and in the proper case, access may
be compelled by a (rit of 'andamus.
8n determining (hether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test
(hich can be applied. A;ublic concernA like Apublic interestA is a term that eludes e)act definition.
Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of sub@ects (hich the public may (ant to kno(, either
because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the
interest of an ordinary citi:en. 8n the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case by
case basis (hether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the
public.
The public concern invoked in the case of Tanada v. Tuvera, supra, (as the need for ade#uate
notice to the public of the various la(s (hich are to regulate the actions and conduct of citi:ens.
8n Subido vs. Ozaeta, supra,the public concern deemed covered by the statutory right (as the
kno(ledge of those real estate transactions (hich some believed to have been registered in
violation of the Constitution.
The information sought by the petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of certain
government employees that they are civil service eligibles for the positions to (hich they (ere
appointed. The Constitution e)pressly declares as a !tate policy that?
Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness
to be determined, as far as practicable, and e)cept as to positions (hich are policy
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical, by competitive e)amination.
*Art. 8H, B, !ec. 3.=3>7.
;ublic office being a public trust, =Const. Art. H8, !ec. 1> it is the legitimate concern of citi:ens to
ensure that government positions re#uiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons
(ho are eligibles. ;ublic officers are at all times accountable to the people even as to their
eligibilities for their respective positions.
b. But then, it is not enough that the information sought is of public interest. Dor mandamus to lie
in a given case, the information must not be among the species e)empted by la( from the
operation of the constitutional guarantee.
8n the instant, case (hile refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, the respondent has
failed to cite any provision in the Civil !ervice a( (hich (ould limit the petitioner"s right to
kno( (ho are, and (ho are not, civil service eligibles. Be take @udicial notice of the fact that the
names of those (ho pass the civil service e)aminations, as in bar e)aminations and licensure
e)aminations for various professions, are released to the public. $ence, there is nothing secret
about one"s civil service eligibility, if actually possessed. ;etitioner"s re#uest is, therefore, neither
unusual nor unreasonable. And (hen, as in this case, the government employees concerned claim
to be civil service eligibles, the public, through any citi:en, has a right to verify their professed
eligibilities from the Civil !ervice Commission.
The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of e)press
limitations under the la( upon access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position, the
duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any person
occupying the position becomes imperative. 'andamus, therefore lies.
B$E,ED9,E, the Civil !ervice Commission is ordered to open its register of eligibles for the
position of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civil service eligibility of &ulian !ibonghanoy
and 'ariano Agas, for said position in the $ealth %epartment of Cebu City, as re#uested by the
petitioner Valentin . egaspi.
Teehan"ee, #.$., %ap, &ernan, 'arvasa, (elencio)*errera, +utierrez, $r., #ruz, ,aras, +ancayco,
,adilla, idin and Sarmiento, $$., concur.
&eliciano, $., is on leave.